The Catholic Bishops, it serves them right. They’re the ones who were really hot for Obamacare, with a few exceptions. But they were all in favor of this. And this is what it looks like when the government decides it’s going to make your health care choices for you.

If the Catholic bishops had previously opposed ObamaCare and supported free market health care reforms on principle, they would now have the moral high ground to argue for religious freedom. But having made their earlier deal with the devil to support ObamaCare, they’re now paying the price.

And their current attempts to seek their own ObamaCare exemption merely turns them into just another special interest group lobbying for a waiver, such as labor unions or the politically connected friends of Nancy Pelosi.

The Catholic bishops can recapture the moral high ground by not merely seeking a narrow exemption for themselves, but rather by supporting broader free market health care reforms, including:

A) Eliminating the tax disparity between employer-provided health insurance and individually-purchased health insurance. This would uncouple health insurance from employment and restore a level playing field to the individual insurance market. Individuals could then purchase policies that they kept even when they changed jobs (just as they already do with their car and homeowners insurance). Employers would no longer be responsible for coverage choices made by their employees.

B) Eliminating all mandated benefits — not just contraceptives, but the dozens of others such as orthotics, autism therapy, in vitro fertilization, etc. Insurers should be free to offer to willing consumers inexpensive policies covering only catastrophic accidents and illnesses. Insurers would remain free to offer richer policies that covered varying levels of elective procedures (but cost correspondingly more). Customers could purchase whatever levels of coverage they wished from willing insurers based on their own individual needs and circumstances.

These free market reforms would lower insurance costs for many consumers, allow individuals to keep their insurance when they changed jobs, and free employers from having to pay for medical services that violated their religious principles.

In summary, the root cause of the current controversy is government interference in the marketplace for health insurance. And the only proper solution is to repeal those government controls and move towards a fully free market in health insurance.

146 Comments, 44 Threads

1.
Jerry

The Right and the Left have harangued Americans to look at the deeds of President Obama and not his words. Of course! The words of a political psychopath are useless in determining meaning.

With regard to health care and contraception, Mr. Obama has limited his family to two children, but he maintains tight control of them through demanding educational activities – very middle-class American. Almost to a person, this is the pattern of family life that members of the government bureaucracy engage in, with the exception of those who are gay. However, our elected elites’ words support the dissolution of family life as seen in the legislative vector – contraception, gay rights, no-fault divorce, acceptance of single-parent households as equivalent to intact family style with a place for mother and father, etc.

It is possible that an objective observer might conclude that Darwinian pressures are causing this dichotomy between elite family style and the lack of family values for the rest of us. It is the disappearance of the proletariat masses that is being sought, those unproductive clods of dirt on the bottoms of the shoes of the governmental ruling class. Population reduction for thee, but not for me.

Dr. Hsaing, I agree that disconnecting health insurance from employment is key to salvaging our healthcare system. After that, there are two basic ways to go: 1) free market, individual insurance as you propose or 2) single payer (with all its obvious faults).

I would be interested however in how the market will achieve the goals of (most) every healthcare system: high patient outcomes, universal coverage, and value for money. Where – in what country – have we seen such a free market healthcare system where these goals are being achieved? What do we do with people who do not purchase insurance? And how do we deal with high risk people or those with pre-existing conditions?

I don’t disagree that the market is generally the solution, but until we are able to answer some of the deficiencies of the market in dealing with the more difficult aspects of healthcare, the Left will continue the drumbeat for the alternative, single payer.

Two things congress needs to do to make health insurance a free market product. First would be to abolish their own rule that limits insurance within states and allow them to compete across state lines. Second would be tort reform.

My husband is often frustrated that I use the terms healthcare and health insurance interchangeably, when they don’t have to be synonymous. My husband is an immigrant and it took him years to understand the insanity that is American healthcare. I suggest you look to the models where he grew up–in Singapore and (to a lesser extent) Malaysia. They’ve come up with a system that provides first world medical care and a cost and pricing system that puts it within reach of the middle class. And it’s very free market oriented. But most Americans have as hard a time understanding a paradigm without insurance as my husband has understanding a paradigm that virtually requires it for everything medical.

As long as people have economic freedom, there will always be a few of them who for their own inscrutable reasons say “No thanks”.

The only way you ever get anything to be totally universal is with force–government force.

Meg cited the example of the Singapore health care system. But the Singapore health care system isn’t exactly laissez-faire: Citizen participation in medical savings accounts is compulsory by law. And the national government decides where to place each hospital for the most efficiency and best public good. The Singapore health care system won’t scale up to a country the size and diversity of the U.S.

There are actually 2 different scenarios that involve pre-existing conditions:

A) You’re already sick when you apply for insurance for the first time. You may have gotten chronically ill as a child; or perhaps you were born with a congenital birth defect. Now as an adult you still have that condition.

B) While you’re a working adult with insurance, you develop a chronic condition, but then you are locked into that insurance.

It’s really the trap of scenario B) that gives the issue legs whenever there’s a recession: Someone who is working (and has insurance) gets sick. Then he loses his job (and with it, his insurance) in the next economic downturn. Now he can’t ever get insurance again elsewhere, because the insurers consider the illness he contracted to be a pre-existing condition.

The trap of scenario B) is already remedied by the fixes we discussed: By decoupling insurance from employment, insurance can be made portable. You can be fired or laid off from your job but still keep your insurance (though now you’ll have to pay the premiums yourself).

Scenario A), though involving fewer Americans, is a much tougher problem. A young child suffering from type I diabetes or leukemia or rhabdomyosarcoma may find when he (hopefully) grows up to adulthood that he’s uninsurable.

For those people who are already sick at the time they apply for insurance for the first time, there may well have to be a government-mandated high-risk pool, similar to the one that exists for high-risk drivers in auto insurance. In the case of sick children who grow to adulthood while still sick, the costs of this could be mitigated by allowing them to stay on their parents’ own existing insurance policy indefinitely (till the parents retire and go on Medicare).

Brutus: Questions such as “how do we deal with high risk people or those with pre-existing conditions?” is an invalid question because it implies that “we” – i.e. “society,” or the government – have an inherent claim on the lives and wealth of the private citizenry. No such claim exists; morally, logically, or in America, constitutionally. Accepting the collectivist premise that every healthcare problem that anyone may encounter is a national problem, and that “we” may subordinate property rights and freedom to “solving” them, will inexorably defeat freedom fighters, sooner or later.

The “market” does not “achieve goals.” A free market leaves every individual free to pursue his/her own goals in regard to healthcare or any other value. Theory and practice have shown that the natural incentives inherent in a free market – individuals seeking the best quality at the best price from producers competing for their business in a given field – leads to ever-widening availability and affordability of goods and services, healthcare included. In a free market, solutions to problems encountered by some tend to emerge because people are free to solve such problems. If “high patient outcomes … and value for money” is the goal, then leaving people free to pursue them is the only answer.

But there is no guarantee, in markets as in nature, that every individual will solve every problem he encounters. Until we realize that it is not the government’s proper function to enforce “universal coverage” or otherwise alleviate the alleged “deficiencies of the market,” the Left will continue to advance us toward single payer, “with all of its obvious faults.”

You appear to conflate what we do as individuals with what we do as a society or nation, the second being accomplished by the government. While we as individuals may have a moral obligation toward others, that does not require that the government do something to fulfill that obligation. Governments get their legitimate powers from people and people do not have the right to take money or anything else from other people to benefit a third person. Taking from others without a right to do so is called stealing. Neither can the government – state or federal – rightfully ‘regulate’ whatever terms and conditions we think ought to exist, if such regulation exceeds the rightful authority of government. We cannot justify our actions by morality when what we propose itself violates morality. Very few people are refused medical care and die in the streets; none of them are denied medical care because any of us order that those who cannot pay not receive medical care. It isn’t a question of caring about others; it is a question of what may the government – remember, they are the men and women with the guns? – do with regard to health care and paying for it. No one could not feel sorry for others who cannot afford health care, but taking from others without their consent is not the correct way to address that problem or, for that matter, any problem where the central issue is ‘who will pay?’.

When people can’t pay for essential basic health coverage, they somehow end up getting it. Who pays for this? Do these services, drugs and equipment just magically become free for them?

No, someone pays for them…somehow right? Whether by using tax payer money, or by increasing the prices of services for everyone else, it gets payed for.

Shouldn’t someone be in charge of ensuring these ‘free’ benefits are given out fairly, and enacting some control mechanisms to try and ensure the smallest burden on society as a whole? Sounds like a good job for the government to me.

I’m all about de-coupling insurance from your employer, that is an important first step. Then moving to a more free market system, but there is always this boundary condition of people falling out to bottom that needs to be dealt with.

(This is the exact same reason we need something like Social Security, some form of forcing people to save for retirement, because some people left to their own devices will save nothing, then expect society to give them free hand out when they are old. Social Security, while not perfect, helps manage this risk)

I’m saying that “looking out for your fellow (disadvantaged) Americans” is a decision that rests only with the voluntary choices of each individual. I’m saying that any individual or group of individual’s who claims the power to make one man’s problem the responsibility of another by government force is a thug and a hypocrite. I’m saying that any individual who claims the right to practice charity at the expense of other peoples tax money and freedom of choice has no right to claim the motive of “looking out for [his] fellow Americans.” I’m saying such behavior is immoral at its core.

The problem with humans is that we are all just animals, ignorant, self centered products of nature. Civility is taught, not inherent.

I say this because, my feeling is that if you let people decide whether to ‘donate’ or not, they more often will not. How much is enough? Am I donating enough, maybe too much? I do not believe that if the government pulls the plug on welfare, medicare, cobra, social security and all the other tax supported programs that charities will be able to cover the costs.

Where is the transparency in charities to ensure the money is distributed fairly and w/o discrimination. For example religious based organizations who give out, only if you come to church and buy into their belief system. (Need an abortion… not going to happen w/ church money.)

Keeping poor people, alive and off the street is a benefit to society, a service if you will. Do middle-class people like having transients in their city, enjoy the increased crime rate associated with poverty? No, absolutely not. Think of it like your tax dollars working to keep your streets clean and safe.

With your logic, the government is also stealing from you to pay for roads and infrastructure, schools and national defense.

I agree that in general the government runs inefficiently, this however is what we should work on improving, not just throwing the whole system out the window. Allow governments to actually fire incompetent workers, continue this trend of improving government transparency using technology. Improve the policies of the programs, do exactly like you say, give incentives to people on welfare to be drug free, make it a “hand-up” and not a “hand-out”. The current system is built that they make more money on welfare than if they went and got a minimum wage job… fix this… don’t just throw up your hands and say it’s all garbage.

The answer you’re searching for is Private Charity that is locally funded and locally run. When run correctly private charity amounts to tough love. If you’re a slacker who claims “I can’t afford it” they’ll tell you to quit smoking, quit drinking, cancel the cable and get a second job. They have a limited amount of money and will only give to the truly needy. The folks with the local private charity know the people in the community, they won’t allow people to steal from their neighbors.

Government “charity”, as Ike said, is theft. There is no accountability for the money spent. In fact, the more spent the better as the budget will increase so there’s zero incentive to get the “clients” off of Government “charity”. Private charity isn’t a “dole for life”, it’s a temporary hand up so that you can get on with your life. Government “charity” is destructive, just review the results from the War on Poverty, while private charity is constructive.

You might rethink your position on Social Security as you’re simply saying that society should operate based on the lowest common denominator. Rather than encouraging people to work, be productive and provide for their futures (a noble goal) we take money from them because some few might fail (an ignoble goal). Worse, what money that isn’t wasted is returned via political favors. The message behind Social Security is “you don’t have to prepare for your future because somebody else will pay for it” and that’s not a winning message. And, BTW, Social Security wasn’t intended to be a retirement program, rather it was a national “Widows and Orphans Fund”. That’s the problem with Government “charity” – there’s not any limit to the theft.

Chris Zeh’s logic behind Social Security – that “some form of forcing people to save for retirement [is needed] because some people left to their own devices will save nothing…” – is the evil that is eating America alive. When you sacrifice the responsible to the irresponsible; the successful to the failure; the wealthy to the poor; the moral to the immoral; the good to the evil; exactly what result do you expect? It is the prescription for poverty and tyranny that ultimately befalls every collectivist society; the placing of the tribe and government outside of the moral law.

Ike nails it: “Governments get their legitimate powers from people and people do not have the right to take money or anything else from other people…” Neither you nor any number of individuals can grant to government that which you yourself do not possess; the right to steal and enslave. America is the first nation to explicitly subordinate society – which means, government – to the same moral law that we as individuals must live by, through the principle of unalienable individual rights. That is the only basis for a civil, humane, and compassionate coexistence among people.

Nobody is arguing that Congress can’t levy taxes to fulfill the proper role of Government. The argument is that theft is not a proper role of Government. How can another citizen be entitled to a share of your paycheck? How can a resident alien be entitled to your paycheck? How can a tourist be entitled to your paycheck? I thought the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery.

Let me ask you a another question: Should the Government be able to confiscate your house and award it to somebody who agrees to pay higher property taxes? Be careful how you answer… if you say “No” then you agree that Governmental theft is impermissible, if you say “Yes” then you agree that anything that can be spun as “the greater good” falls within the Government’s proper role. And the greater good may well be requiring you to buy a Chevy Volt to combat non-existent AGW. Or, the greater good may be served if we euthanize everybody your age and above to save on future Social Security and Medicare payments.

Who do you want to have the power – you or the nameless, faceless mob?

I’m still trying to comprehend where theft and slavery come into play in this discussion? It almost sounds like you are saying that paying income tax is the equivalent of theft, and/or slavery?

To try and answer the question you pose: Can the government give your house away to someone who agrees to pay higher taxes? No of course not. If you can’t pay the taxes you owe on the house and government is forced to liquidate your assets, and therefore your house in order to pay debts owed, then yes they can take your house. But not because they are handing it off to the highest bidder.

“Who do you want to have the power – you or the nameless, faceless mob?”

How about the government with appropriate checks and balances, accountability and transparency? In general, citizens tend to make poor decisions based on their own (often misinformed) interest and ideologies, typically trusting their gut and heart rather than their brain.

(Note: I’m not saying you think with your gut/heart, you obviously use your brain, we just have different conclusions and opinions. Currently 1/5 of the American population thinks the Sun and other planets revolve around the Earth, and 40% of the population thinks the Earth is ~5000 years old, it is this large mob I’m afraid of, not the government)

The argument isn’t about income taxes, it’s about the proper role of government.

If I approach you as you leave an ATM and take $20 from you, is that theft? Yes.
If my agent, the government, approaches you as you leave the ATM, takes $20, and hands it to me, is that theft? Yes. Your stuff belongs to you and using the government to act on my behalf doesn’t alter the fact that I’m stealing from you. You are not freely choosing to give me the money, it’s not charitable giving, I’m taking it under threat of force and imprisonment. I have no moral, ethical or Constitutional right to stick my hand in your wallet.

“In general, citizens tend to make poor decisions…”

No, no, no. People are very good at making decisions based on their enlightened self-interest. Problems arise when government steps in to modify the free market in order to “protect people from themselves”. The free market rewards good decisions and punishes poor decisions. Think about a risk continuum… at one end we have “low risk, low reward” opportunities and at the other we have “high risk, high reward” opportunities. In the free market if you take the high risk then you’ll pay the price if it fails. Now consider the financial collapse – the government stepped into the housing market and encouraged imprudent lending. In essence, they replaced the risk continuum with one labeled “no risk, low reward” and “no risk, high reward”. Unsurprising, borrowers, lenders, and investment houses made what you’d call “poor decisions” but I’d called “decisions based on enlightened self-interest”. The investment houses took every “high reward” opportunity they could find because they believed they couldn’t fail and the borrowers gobbled up the free money like it was a turkey at Thanksgiving. All of the individuals involved came to the same conclusion – there was no personal cost for failure and the subsequent bailouts have proven them correct. Governmental intervention shifted the cost of failure to us, the innocent by-stander, and we’ve certainly been paying for it.

When you separate actions from consequences then you create perverse incentives and the social safety net is nothing but one big perverse incentive. We pay people to not work, we punish those who succeed with crippling taxes, we make excuses for those who fail and proclaim luck as the only reason for success. The motives may have originally been pure (though I doubt it) but ultimately government charity drives society to the lowest common denominator. Rewarding failure and punishing success encourages people to be the least that they can be and eventually puts all power in the hands of government. If in a nationalized health care system your heart bypass operation depended on you voting for the Libertarian then wouldn’t you vote for the Libertarian? Of course you would. Would you still be a free man? Nope. Shouldn’t the government of a free society encourage every citizen to be the best that they can be? It depends on whether or not those in the government really want the society to be free.

Your connection between taxation and being stolen from is such a huge jump, I see what you’re getting at but I think it’s a slightly exaggerated metaphor. There is always the give/take relationship adjusting the amount of taxation. But there will always be taxes.

Anyway…

Your second point is very good! I totally agree with you that it’s important to maintain the connection between actions and consequences, and keeping the balance in the risk/reward trade-off.

My point is that some (hopefully small) group of people will eventually fall out the bottom of the “game” if you will. Once someone has lost everything, for example someone who is absolutely bankrupt from medical bills, we have two options: sit back and let them suffer and die, or because of our moral conscience step in and provide assistance.

If you don’t require everyone to have health insurance, you completely decouple the risk/reward. The default, ideal risk/reward is to not have any health insurance, therefore paying nothing monthly, then if the disaster strikes and you get cancer, free hand-outs from society. Best risk/reward for the individual, worst possible outcome for society.

From my understand of the situation this is exactly what is happening, young people who think they are healthy are forgoing any form of health insurance, putting larger burdens on society. It seems like a good idea to put some regulation in to try and hedge this possible burden, and ensure fair risk/reward for everyone. (Now, I don’t totally agree with the way ObamaCare is going about it, but at least something is finally happening).

Let me know what you think of this analysis, I think we are really getting into the meat and potatoes of the issue, and I really appreciate your time and opinions.

You could not be more wrong about what will happen under ObamaCare. It will increase costs and reduce efficiencies just like every other governmental intrusion over the last 40 years. The free market is the most efficient mechanism to allocate resources known to man. Yet the myth persists, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, that bureaucrats are better decision makers than the consumer. And that myth persists because bureaucrats want the power associated with the decision making so they keep peddling the myth. And people keep buying the myth because it promises them something for nothing. It’s in their enlightened self-interest to support organized theft. Sure, it’s bad for the few who will be providing the services and paying the bills but it’s a great deal for the majority – if it works. If it doesn’t work then the majority figures they’ll lose a bit of freedom but otherwise they won’t be any worse off, it’s just another “no risk, all reward” hoax because in reality it’s “all risk, no reward”.

If you want to see what the future looks like under ObamaCare then you can look at one of the best insurance plans in the world – Medicaid. That’s right, I’m saying that a government administered insurance plan is an outstanding health insurance program. The only drawback to Medicaid is that it provides virtually no health care. Doctors refuse to take Medicaid patients because they lose money on each of them. It seems they can’t stay in business when the patients are stealing from them. ObamaCare will be just like it – great health insurance plan, lousy health care.

The United States has the best health care system in the world. Unfortunately it’s going to suffer some “bad luck”: “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”" — Robert A. Heinlein

I could spend time wondering why the bureaucrats want to destroy everything they touch but there’s no need as the irreplaceable Heinlein has already provided the answer – “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”. ObamaCare is about control, in fact it’s the ultimate control. Vote for me or you won’t get your blood pressure medication, if you want that wound stitched then you’ll have to join our union, sign this petition or you won’t move up the organ transplant list, and, lastly, say… Barack’s been in a accident and he needs your kidneys. I know, you’re saying “that’s ridiculous!” but once you’ve given over your freedom what choice will you have? You give up your kidneys or your family is off the health care list.

Maybe you misunderstand me, I’m agreeing with you that ObamaCare is a bad idea. The intentions are good, trying to improve the system which is currently broken but the way they are trying to fix it is wrong. This is something I think we can both agree on.

With health insurance currently coupled to employment, insurance is not a free market service. Because it’s tied to employment there is an inherent coercive force that is applied by people in power, in this case typically the wealthy. In this situation it becomes a form of class warfare and a controlling mechanism. Let me know if you think I’m mistaken on this key point.

Right now women have been under heavy attack by the religious right, specifically on their reproductive rights. This is why I’m fighting so hard to pass this initiative in the interim while we focus on the real issue at hand. Again, it’s a bandaid, but once I tabulate the pros and cons it seems like the best option for society at this time.

I enjoy reading SciFy so your Robert A. Heinlein quote is highly appreciated.

I agree that historically once the government gets their hands on something it is often screwed up, at least with the advances in technology we are able to improve the transparency and radically new layer of checks and balances.

Unfortunately people are inherently greedy and some form of oversight and checks and bounds has to be applied.

You think that free-market economics will apply this control, I’m more skeptical looking at historical evidence. I’m not sure the right term that embodies predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and other forms of anti-trust, however all these things are what have happened in the past that have pushed the government to get involved. Seemingly many areas of economics start off as laissez-faire capitalism, but inevitably due to someone trying to cheat the system, they force regulation on the entire industry.

You’re saying “this” is very important to me. It’s so important to me that you must pay for it.

Thus you’re giving me control over something that you say is very important to you. Why would you do that? I want control over the things that matter to me, you evidently want me to control those things that matter to you.

Because I’m paying for something that you value I can stop paying for it, which makes you live your life in fear. Why would you want that? I understand why politicians want you living in fear, it makes you part of a reliable voting block. What I don’t understand is why a sane individual would go out of their way to create a system that will paralyze them with fear every election cycle.

Insurance is a financial instrument that helps you manage unexpected expenditures. Your position is that it should also manage all routine, ordinary, and expected expenditures provided somebody else comes out on the short end of the deal. Do you not recall the discussion about theft?

Maybe this will explain why you don’t have any money: How much tax do we really pay? (http://nowandfutures.com/taxes.html). Do you honestly believe that all those “free” programs are actually free? And, just so you know, the total shown on the webpage is low – it excludes the employer’s share of FICA which is part of the employee’s gross wages and compensation.

In order to drive an automobile you are required to have some form of insurance at minimum to protect other drivers (society) — liability insurance. Right?

In order to ‘drive’ through life you should be required to carry some form of insurance to protect society from your possible costs. You say insurance protects the holder’s wallet, but it also protects society from having to foot the entire bill if you come down with cancer or some other massive expense that you can’t pay for (which ends up getting paid for by everyone else).

Maybe the solution is to split up health insurance into two plans, (a) Liability insurance — for huge drastic problems. This will be required coverage mandated by the government (b) Comprehensive coverage — for other smaller (more elective) expenses. Sound like a fair compromise?

As for taxation, yes it seems like a lot, but I would like to see that same information compared to other countries so I can better evaluate if we are ‘getting our monies worth’ so to say.

Obviously those services are not ‘free’, someone has to pay for it. Usually it’s the people who are more well off who pay for it, and it’s the poor who get it for ‘free’. If the rich turn their heads and don’t help the poor, you know what happens… French Revolution style upheaval.

The ‘free hand out’ system needs to be overhauled so it gives people a “hand-up” not a “hand-out”. We need to improve the system, not just get rid of it.

Yeah, right, the old tax for being alive argument. Why don’t you just admit that you fundamentally oppose freedom? If you live in society then you have certain obligations. One of them is to be a responsible citizen. Your argument boils down to “because there will be irresponsible citizens we must do these things…” and that argument, as I said above, just leads to a society based on the lowest common denominator. Your solution is a death spiral for a civilization. If you want to see how your solution plays out in the SciFi world just read the Honor Harrington series by David Weber. IIRC, in the 3rd book, “The Short Victorious War” you’re introduced to the Dolist Party on the People’s Republic of Haven. Perhaps a fictional setting will allow you to see what the examples of the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and China do not. Perhaps a fictional setting will reacquaint you with the power of freedom. Perhaps not.

And you’re also wrong about the rich being the ones paying the taxes. Go back and reread the webpage and for each item ask yourself “are the rich the only ones paying this tax?”. One main reason the poor stay poor is all the taxes they have to pay. The poor pay property taxes if they either rent or own homes, they pay fuel taxes if they drive, they pay sales taxes when they make purchases and they pay corporate income taxes every time they buy a product. The poor are paying for much of the “help” they get, for every $1 in assistance they may well be paying $1.5 in taxes. And the tax burden absolutely destroys the middle class.

I’d like to say I’m surprised that you’re so blase about handing 65% of your paycheck over to the government but I’m not. It’s pretty clear that you’ve bought all the “evil rich” canards and don’t understand how you’re being used. Maybe one day you will.

“Your argument boils down to “because there will be irresponsible citizens we must do these things…” and that argument, as I said above, just leads to a society based on the lowest common denominator. Your solution is a death spiral for a civilization.”

I see no reason for this form of hedging to lead to this so called death spiral. Most liberals are not aiming for full blown socialism as many conservatives argue. Socialism doesn’t work, pure laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t work. The right fit is somewhere in the middle.

———–

I noticed you totally glazed over my proposed compromise to health care (the main topic of this debate). Any comments on this?

————

“One main reason the poor stay poor is all the taxes they have to pay.”
That is the first time I’ve ever heard a conservative say that.

Do you propose any solutions to reduce the tax burden on the middle class while avoiding French Revolution style class warfare, besides just cutting programs across the board and turning tax “off”?

“I noticed you totally glazed over my proposed compromise to health care (the main topic of this debate). Any comments on this?

Your compromise isn’t a compromise, it’s nationalized health care. Insurance is a risk management tool. You buy insurance to mitigate the impact that unforeseen and low probability events have on your financial situation. With your “Comprehensive coverage of elective expenses” you’re simply promoting theft. You want me to cover all or part of the cost of your routine and ordinary expenses plus you’ll spend more of my money solely at your discretion on other optional services. It’s like having milk insurance and then electing to buy a box of cereal and handing me the bill. I’m puzzled why you can’t comprehend that taking money from me for your personal gain is theft. It doesn’t matter that you use a politician to conduct the actual heist, the money flows into your pockets which makes you a thief.

You also fail to grasp that what one Congress does another may undo. Or, perhaps you do grasp it and you’re looking forward to the biennial fright-fests with “evil Republicans” and “rabid right-wingers taking away your freedom (to spend their money)” slogans. What is it about freedom, liberty and economic prosperity that you find so distasteful? Everything you propose strips people of freedom, robs them of liberty and leads to economic ruin. This nation was founded on the premise that the power rested with the people, we were the “exceptional nation”. You want to put us back in the fold with the other nations where government rules all. You want to turn your back on the gains we’ve made in our brief history but to what end? High-fives around the latte machine? So we can be like everybody else because you’re afraid to be different?

You’ve got lot of animus toward the free market… why? Are you afraid to compete or are you afraid that you’ll succeed beyond your wildest expectations? I can understand your not wanting to succeed, imagine waking up one day to find that you’ve become the evil rich dude that you now so despise! The free market is the best solution to resource allocation. The answer to any legitimate concerns about the free market is competition. But what prevents competition is government. Companies don’t want to compete, they want monopolies which they can only have via government fiat. Competition is always best for the consumer, your “solutions” are just more monopolies that will hurt the consumer and help cement power in the hands of government.

I think we’ve hit a wall in this debate, and it is probably best we conclude it. I appreciate your opinions, and feel like the discussion was fruitful for my understanding of the issues.

My final thoughts:

You are ignoring all of my main points, and fail to recognize the compromise is which is:
-Minimal national health insurance to hedge against catastrophes that will potentially burden society. Similar to liability insurance for automobiles. -Not full blown national health care.

I don’t see you giving any solutions besides, as far as I can tell, full laissez-faire capitalism, which historically has been proven not to work. All areas of economics typically begin unregulated, and once the inevitable abuse creeps in by ‘evil people’, this is when the regulation is added.

Please don’t assume I don’t value freedom. It seems you mistakenly think paying taxes and helping the less fortunate is sacrificing freedom. I think it is a necessity to ensure civilization marches forward and we avoid full blown French Revolution style class warfare.

“My final thoughts: You are ignoring all of my main points, and fail to recognize the compromise which is: -Minimal national health insurance to hedge against catastrophes that will potentially burden society. Similar to liability insurance for automobiles. -Not full blown national health care.

No, the problem is that you’re either ignoring or don’t understand your main points. Here via the magic of cut and paste is your compromise: “Maybe the solution is to split up health insurance into two plans, (a) Liability insurance — for huge drastic problems. This will be required coverage mandated by the government (b) Comprehensive coverage — for other smaller (more elective) expenses. Sound like a fair compromise?”

Point (A) amounts to what used to be called “Major Medical”, Point (B) transforms it into nationalized health care as more and more mandated coverage is added. I know, you saying “but Point (B) isn’t required coverage! It’s optional!!”. Sure it is, up until you discover that Point (B) is cost prohibitive. Point (B) represents a self-selective group that will have very high insurance usage. The only way to get premiums for (B) to reasonable levels is to mandate the coverage in a risk pool that’s dominated by people who will not use the coverage and force them to subsidize those who will use it. However, those in that risk pool that can will flee because of the rising premiums. If you’d spend a few minutes researching the results of “shall issue” insurance mandates then you’d understand that your proposal bankrupts the insurance industry and “forces” the government to step in. I type “forces” because nationalized health care is the intent of “shall issue” mandates.

In a free market system the power is with the consumer. In your “compromise” the power is with government. You want to control the people, I want the people to be free. History shows us what a free people can accomplish, it also shows us the misery of government control.

Obtaining a true free market in health care will be difficult. First, the medical profession does not want a “free market” because it will increase competition for those already practicing medicine, thus reducing incomes available to existing practioners. Also, the medical profession earns a considerable amount of money from having a legal government enforced monopoly over the supply of medicine. Ignoring hospitalization and such, many people will end up paying more to obtain a doctor’s prescription than they will for the drug itself. Then the doctor will require regular office visits to “monitor” the patient. If you refuse to go along, the doctor will refuse to renew your prescription. This is one of the major sources of income for primary care doctors. It is also “why” we have a supposed “shortage” of such doctors today. (they created the “shortage” for their own benefit). The truth of the matter is that any educated person with a computer, access to the Internet, and some reasonable willingness to study can take care of most of their health needs without the need for a doctor. The trouble of course is that the government prevents you from taking care of your own health on your own. Just as the government now requires that you get a prescription from your “vet” to purchase heartworm pills for your dog or cat! What we have is “monopoly medicine” enforced by the federal and state governments. That’s why Americans pay more for health care than people in any other country on Earth! Obviously getting “government” (federal, state, local) out of the picture would seriously reduce the cost of health care. However only the Libertarian Party is willing to support such ideas. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties support “big government” of a sort that serves our own health care plutocracy at the expense of the rest of us!

Wow, you just marginalized all of medical education into a Google search.

Before you can administer heartworm medication you have to be 100% sure the animal does not already have heartworms. This requires a blood test, not something you can do with a google search. (FYI… your animal has a chance of death if the heartworms are killed while in the heart due to this medicine).

Another example, if you just follow Google for your medical advice you will run into Jenny McCarthy and her swath of misinformation and associated body count. This is just one example, next I point to holistic medicine, I could continue….

People spend big bucks to go to school to learn the ins and outs of medicine, and it takes several years because it is exceedingly complex. My wife is 3/4th’s done with Vet school, I should know. (Btw, nearly her entire income for the next 10 years will be going to pay off student loans, she didn’t get into this business just to make a buck, quite the contrary.)

Thanks for the discussion on the questions I raised. There is quite a fair bit of “not my brothers keeper” sentiment here and I’m not sure that is in keeping with the American and Christian values I was raised with, but so be it. I remain curious: where is there a healthcare (or health insurance, thanks Meg) system that is based on the free market and achieves better health outcomes? I remain unconvinced that healthcare is the same as trade in oil or apples. I appreciate our libertarian friends who claim that the “market” will solve all, but don’t see it in healthcare. I don’t think that any of us would say “let ‘em die” is suitable alternative.

“I don’t think that any of us would say “let ‘em die” is suitable alternative.”

Your reason for dismissing a free-market solution is a combination of a strawman logical fallacy and a false dichotomy.

1) It is a strawman because no libertarian has taken that position. The position that Mike LaFerrara so eloquently and correctly states is that no individual has claim on another.

2) It is a false dichotomy because there are more than two choices, government intervention vs. let ‘em die. As stated before, helping the sick and poor is the role of charity. It could be in the form of doctors working pro bono, organized charities paying doctors for their service or contributions from family and friends. There are probably a dozen other ways to keep ‘em from dying on the streets that don’t involve government force.

Thanks for explanation Greg. As I understand your position, the solution to our healthcare/health insurance problems is cut employers out of the equation, everyone purchases – or doesn’t purchase – health insurance in the free market. For those who do not or cannot purchase insurance perhaps there will be charity or benevolent friends and relatives. Or something else. Simple.

“Mike LaFerrara’s logic, premises, and conclusions are flawless and concise.” No doubt. Unfortunately that flawless logic remains libertarian fantasy thinking does little to address the very real problems in our healthcare system.

Health insurance, like all other forms of insurance, should pay only for the unexpected, potentially bankrupting diseases. Small and everyday types of doctor visits and medical treatments should not be covered.

The 2012 election will boil down the the voters’ choice of (1) Freedom or (2) Free Stuff. Both parties have encouraged voters to vote for Free Stuff, like ObamaCare and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage (thank you, George Bush). We now borrow about half of the money our government spends, and much of that borrowing is from less than friendly folks like the Chinese. While neither party has exclusive control of the high ground on this issue, the Democrats have done everything in their power to encourage their base to always expect and demand Free Stuff over Freedom. Whoever the Republican nominee is, let’s hope he can projects and promote a vision of Freedom as the better alternative.

I think it was Jefferson who said that a man willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither. I say he will, eventually, have neither.

I’ve never had “health insurance”, being self-empolyed, then off work many years due to a serious on the job injury. My annual average health care expenses, other than directly related to the injury (covered by workmen’s comp) runs about half what the lowest monthly premium for the most basic medical coverage would cost. I have educated myself on how to maintain good health, and do so. It is not difficult. Most of the cost of what little professional service I do purchase is due to the lack of tort reform and added costs “protecting” the industry against malpractice actions. Almost all the remaining cost is due to inncreasing government mandated protocols, our pharmaceutical system, etc. We could cut these boondoggles out of the system, limit malpractice “punitive damage” awards to something reasonable (no more lawyers after multimillion dollar payouts to fatten THEIR pockets at OUR expense… a perverted form of socialism, take the millions from everyone to overfatten the already puggish elite). And WHY did it cost $3 for a box of 30 antihistamine capsules across the counter in Canada and at the same time $30 for a packet of ten of the identical product here at WalMart pharmacy, AFTER paying a doc $80 to scribble on a piece of paper telling the guy in the white coat to hand me what I already knew I needed?

Deregulate health insurance and watch their lobbies go to work on eliminating these stupid cost increasers. Problem solved. When my Dad lived in the Philippines for several years, top quality medical care, including hospital care, cost there, paid in cash, about what the copay would have been here in the US. Most of the medical professionals in the Philippines are trrained in US universities and hospitals, then they return “home” to serve their own people. They must be well paid to afford US medical training. What’s wrong with THIS picture?

Dr. Paul – good article. I agree a necessary first step is detaching insurance from employer, if and this is a big if, the insurers then don’t use that as excuse to hike the risk factor of pooled insured.

Hope you’ll grant me one rant.

———

I generally detest George Will anymore as he now but a dupe in the Washington establishment after years of wine and roses, but in this one statement, Will is absolutely spot on.

The Catholic Bishops, it serves them right. They’re the ones who were really hot for Obamacare, with a few exceptions. But they were all in favor of this. And this is what it looks like when the government decides it’s going to make your health care choices for you.

We should have listened closer to Jesus when He told us, “Render into Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God, what is God’s.”

The Catholic Church and to a lesser degree many of our Protestant Churches, have failed us miserably in the fight against government tyranny. The road to hell has been paved by the Church’s initial good intentions, and in fact the Churches have wholly assisted Eden’s snakes like Obama to take away our liberties, our choices, our freedoms, and not even recognize they’ve been played in doing so.

Our Founding Fathers, most Protestant Christians and many with theological degrees, knew the dangers all too well of mixing church and state. Because if history had taught them anything, mixing church and state invariably leads to the amoral state allowed avenue to become the immoral church, our rights then endowed not by God but by anyone willing to assume the role of king – or in our case, Caesar Obama and his bread and circuses routine. And note, this does mean there can be no semblance of worship in the public square, which has been used as a club against Christians. Our Founders didn’t open Congress with a prayer to praise King George.

If I could make a supposition tying your article with this whole sordid Sandra Fluke affair, a clear and gross setup of government tyranny which we happily walked blindly into, especially you Rush Limbaugh, who allowed the entire narrative to change; an argument Rush, we had won in the court of public opinion and could have strangled liberalism with.

Why is the Jesuit Brotherhood allowing admission to a woman with views diametrically opposed to your mission statement of a private Catholic University, overseen by Jesuits? You have caved on your own principles in the name of tolerance, political correctness, money, and some nebulous academic esteem by reprobates of ill repute you’ve gathered as administration. If you had any guts at all, you’d immediately fire all of them, reimburse the students who won’t agree to the precepts of your mission statement by signing on the bottom line, and walk every last one of them to the curb. If you can’t muster the energy, honesty and backbone to do so, then close shop and sell insurance or give the school to Larry Flynt.

Because frankly Christian Church leaders, many of you are not much different than your detractors. I could say the same of you, Baylor University and a host of other private academic organizations who have conveniently forgotten your purpose, whether education or health care, for the sake of mammon.

The Christian churches were seduced by the temptations of political power long long ago. How long ago? The coronation of Clovis as Holy Roman Emperor was more than 1400 years ago, and is the first coup d’etat by any of the Christian churches for which there is clear historical evidence. Why are you surprised, then, when we find that they are bending the knee to governments?? The rulers and leaders of Christianity – all of its churches, not just the Roman – decided that their religious authority was more important than the message of Christ and the apostles so long ago that the historical evidence of it is a blur. That is why you see Jesuits appearing to surrender their principles to short-term political expediency: those principles have not had the value to the Church that they have to you or other Christians for a very very very long time. Look around, sir: “Do men gather figs from thorns or grapes from thistles?” And let us seek a solution to our problems without relying on any of the Christian leaders for they are a broken reed, already Caesar’s captives.

Why are you surprised, then, when we find that they are bending the knee to governments?? The rulers and leaders of Christianity – all of its churches, not just the Roman – decided that their religious authority was more important than the message of Christ and the apostles so long ago that the historical evidence of it is a blur.

Not surprised in the least. I was simply pointing to the obvious shortcomings of the church, which you corroborated in your response. I don’t disagree with the gist of your statement, other than the time line. It wasn’t 1,400 years ago, but 600 years before that.

Man’s sinful nature, his pride, arrogance, and self-servitude didn’t stop at the foot of the cross.

“If the Catholic bishops had previously opposed ObamaCare and supported free market health care reforms on principle, they would now have the moral high ground to argue for religious freedom. But having made their earlier deal with the devil to support ObamaCare, they’re now paying the price.”

This is so true. All we kept hearing from all churches time and again was this idea of “wealth re-distribution” and that the good “Christian” way to support all of these poor people was by having the government support them through our tax dollars. Well, this is what happens when you trust “government” to make all of the decisions for you. And if GOVERNMENT is paying for it, GOVERNMENT gets to tell you what to do, how to do it, and how the money is spent. So in one way I’m not to sorry to see the Catholic Church have to struggle with this. When you decide to accept socialist or Marxist practices, don’t cry to me when the commissar knocks on your door.

But there still is a question of religious freedom and the Government does NOT have the right to simply trash the Constitution whenever it sees fit. The Constitution is an important document and that still doesn’t give the Federal Government the right to take freedoms away from people, even if they are fools.

Why not tack against the wind? Offer incentives to individuals to increase their workplace productivity; if you put out more, i.e. are more productive,than you are entitled to more condoms or oral contraceptives. This might be the stimulus corporate America is searching for. And it might also be a boon to the more unattractive members of the workforce. Just trying to think outside of the box, so to speak.

This article does not include the influence of Unions on
health insurance supplied by Companies.

Most benefits such as contraception, office visits, sex change,
same sex partners were negotiated between the Company and Unions.
These negotiated benefits then helped drive the market up. These
drove up copays and deductibles for all employees whether they used
the service or not.

The Catholic Bishops, it serves them right. This is spot on. For they didn’t study their Bibles carefully, nor the Constitution. The Bibles demand that Christians be charitable. But, government “largess” is NOT charity. Its force. And its force that the Bishops will get. Now they’re begging for expemptions from the very behemoth that they lobbied for. And its about time, they get off the “social justice” advocacy. What is just about a women having kids with five different men, collects food stamps and welfare for a living, and stick people going to work with the bill?

Excellent article and good points Dr. Hsieh. I would like to add 2 more points you did not address.

1. Follow the money. Who stands to make the most from enforced health care premiums and mandates? It seems to me that it would be the insurers, medical supply companies and the pharmaceutical companies. Thus the intense lobbying by these groups for universal single payer. The doctors are going to be left out in the cold and asked to do more with less.

2. The Catholic Church. Liberation theology and left wing activism permeates the Church. Then we have the spectacle of the bishops seeing the massive influx of illegals as a way to bolster dwindling congregations, thus their push for open border policies. So they supported the administration’s health care plan in exchange for “immigration reform”. Now the hand the bishops used to feed the beast has been bitten. They had no problem with health care premiums being extracted at the point of a gun from working people but didn’t think it would apply to them.

Insurance companies set rates based on how much they’ll pay out over the term period. If they expect a 90% probability of paying $1000 and a 10% probability of $50,000 then your rate will be $5900 (0.9*1000 + 0.1*50000). But, if you’ve got a “pre-existing condition” and there’s a 90% probability of $50,000 and a 10% probability of $100,000 then your rate will be $55,000. If you’re a “normal” in group plan where 25% have pre-existing conditions then your rate will increase from $5900 to $18,175 (0.75*5900 + 0.25*55000) while the others will see a rate reduction from $55,000 to $18,175. You’d be correct in assuming that those with pre-existing conditions would endorse the change.

And it’s not just those with medical issues that drive up the insurance cost. When you clamor for “no deductible, no co-pay, no peace” all you’re doing is raising the amount that the insurance company is “certain” it will pay out, which increases the rate. Then add the mandates that the author mentions, which again just increase the amount that the insurance company is “certain” it will expend and your rate increases again.

Health insurance is not health care. Health insurance is a financial management tool that helps smooth out your health care expenditures. Theoretically, your lifetime premiums should equal your lifetime benefits once you factor in the time value of money. Unfortunately, government has stepped in and turned health insurance into a wealth transfer program from the young and healthy to the (generally) older and unhealthy (guess which group votes). And you hear the stories of “the insurance company won’t pay for the treatment” but it’s not the insurance company that’s paying, it’s the other rate payers in your plan who pay. There is no such thing as futile care when you’re spending other people’s money.

ChrisS claims: “Insurance companies set rates based on how much they’ll pay out over the term period.”

They set rates based on how much they will pay out to the total pool of insured. They don’t set rates based on the claims of each policyholder. Because that’s completely unknown in advance.

People who are healthy, exercise, eat right, don’t smoke and don’t use drugs can still get chronically sick someday through no fault of their own. I’m one of them.

And the cost of treating that chronic illness–when it occurs–can be huge and continuing. Many chronic illnesses have no cures. The cost can greatly exceed all the premiums you ever personally paid into the system.

Instead, the insurance company uses actuarial data on the incidence of various illnesses to figure out how costly health care for a population can be–and then sets rates accordingly.

In short, insurance is not a calculation of your own costs and benefits. It’s a *bet* that you place with the insurer. The insurer is like the casino, betting that in the long run, he’ll win more than the total population of players will. But among the players, there are winners (those whose claims exceed their premiums) and losers (those who paid premiums into the system but never got sick and needed to file claims).

A few thoughts, which should have been shouted in the passage of Obamacare, and recently. The conflict is about abortion, which most Americans reject; it is not about contraception, which most Americans approve. The spin doctors have won again. Congressman Stupak (D, Catholic)) led a group in rebellion against their party by calling for insertion of a long standing legal barrier of government abortion funding. This was bitterly fought by Planned Parenthood, which derives much of their income from abortion; it is their bread and butter. Obama fibbed to Stupak in a compromise, an non binding Executive Order to prohibit abortion funding. Stupak lost his career on this double cross.

The other concept is the legal definition of “health”, which by SC rule, can have no government limit. Whatever a patient, and doctor define as health related, is.

The end result, is both a blank check, infinite costs, and an unconstitutional act by a bureaucracy. HHS attempts to trump the Constitution, ordering self insured religious employers to pay for what they consider homicide. If neither side blinks, this time next year, roughly 1/6 of all US hospitals, schools and orphanages will close (a very rough number but in the ball park). The loss will dwarf HHS contribution to our society.

Congress punted to HHS on this constitutional issue. This must rank as one of the sleaziest performances in the history of sleazy Congressional performances.

The goal was universal health care, a laudable goal (not a basic Constitutional right.) The result is a disaster; the only way the books balance is if doctors work for free. These smart folks are either bankrupting or quitting.

IMHO, a basic health need is food, and our money is becoming so worthless, that Americans will starve if we continue down this road. You do not have to be a Catholic to consider the wrath of God. We are in trouble.

One problem I foresee with completely free market health insurance is the possibility of discrimination against people with per-existing conditions.

For example, if one company is offering two different insurance pools to buy into. They advertise their cheap fund, which is only for healthy young adults with no pre-existing conditions and the second pool for everyone else. The second pool will quickly be filled up with people who’s outgoing expenses exceed the total income of the pool. After that boat capsizes, who will be left to pay for their medical coverage? The rest of the society will have to pitch in, via tax monies, or ‘free’ services offered by doctors that are subsidized by an overall increase in rates/fees.

Someone needs to step in and balance that boat, in a fair and reasonable manner, hence the need for regulation.

We long ago decided that there did indeed need to be a high risk pool type of coverage for people with pre-existing/chronic conditions; it’s called Medicare and Medicaid. And notice that anybody, Republican or Democratic, that talks about reducing payouts from these programs faces shrill screams to, “keep your hands off my medicare!” The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is that it has gone beyond just the intended purpose of high risk pool coverage and has steadily crept more towards full insurance coverage. In so doing it’s become counterproductive with it’s myriad of requirements and glacial rate of reimbursements to providers it has more and more doctors opting out of accepting medicare/medicaid coverage. If the government can’t get Medicare/Medicaid right, then what makes you think it can get a mandated liability coverage plan right also? But that is really a different discussion all together than to the topic of health insurance for generally healthy people — which compromises the majority of users with the health care system. By and large the majority of health insurance users would benefit greatly from a free market approach that levels the playing field competitively between providers and targeted services to value conscious consumers.

Excellent article, insurance of all types should be for the unpredictable and catastrophic vicissitudes of life, whether fire, car, or health insurance.

I belong to an affinity group, it is an association of Christian members (non-smokers, non-drinkers, no wild AIDS-prone lifestyles) who pay monthly “shares,” not premiums. It is not insurance, and is so far allowed by our insect overlords.

For me and the others I know who participate, they always pay for covered expenses. I have chosen a large deductible, and must pay “full retail” for checkups that find nothing wrong. On the other hand, they paid 100% for my surgery ($57,000).

1) Decouple health insurance from employment. It was a bad idea to begin with and it keeps getting worse.

2) Basic health care provided free of charge by state/local governments. We are essentially doing this now through the emergency room mandate…lets get real about it, build a clinic next to the emergency room, and manage this in a realistic, up-front way.

3) If you want more than the bare bones…reach in your pocket and pay for it yourself. Pay cash if you like, or buy insurance if you like. Regulation should be limited to making sure that contracts are clear and enforced…terms should be negotiatible.

If all we did was these three things…prices would fall and we’d all be much better off. Of course, it won’t happen because too many special interests would lose out and there wouldn’t be enough “free stuff”.

There’s a lot of logic here.
An ideal “free market” health care system, in which providers could factor in whichever risk factors they chose, and buyers could choose among providers much like they choose other insurance, would probably bring costs down AND accomplish much of the “social engineering” Obama would like to accomplish- but in a way that does not bite into liberty.

For example, a health insurer should have the right to factor lifestyle choices into rates. Just as a car insurer cares about what you drive, when, where, and how, and a home insurer is going to check your house for overhanging tree limbs and fire hazards and charge you accordingly, a health insurer should be able to factor in risky sexual, eating, and other behaviors. I don’t want to pay for someone else’s contraceptives (although given a choice, its cheaper than paying for their babies!), or their hunting accidents, or the quadruple bypass they need after decades of Krispy Kremes.

Hmmm… we could take this further. An ideal health insurance system would collect information on the customer in real time, warning of surcharges or offering benefits based on current activities. I wonder if technology could make this possible?

“warning: Consuming that cheesecake will put you over your approved weekly fat consumption allowance, and will incur a $1.99 surcharge to your premium.”

“suggestion: Walking to the next bus stop will entitle you to a credit on your health insurance premium of $2.00, provided you obey traffic signals”.

I’d rather see behavior changed by free will, responding to economic realities than government decree!

All of these arguments compel people one way or the other. Health insurance is a 20th century invention. Before that, people interacted one-on-one with their doctor and took responsibility for themselves and the people they cared about.

All regulations involve compulsion and the effect of compulsion is to limit choices and protect established businesses and service providers.

In a true free market economy, if some employers wanted to offer health care to their employees, that would be their option. If health insurance companies charged more for sick people than healthy ones, women then men, smokers than non-smokers, etc., that would be their option. The flip side is that healthy people would pay less and there would be a great incentive for people to get healthy and stay healthy. And guess what: if you wanted to help a sick person, no one would stop you!!!! Competition would rule and government would have no power to keep new entrants from the marketplace. Then health care would truly be affordable.

People think that sick people “deserve” health benefits not in proportion to the costs of providing them. Who pays for it? They don’t care, as long as everyone is compelled to pay “equally” except the rich have to pay more.
Only a true free market solution makes sense: a solution in which each market participant negotiates as a buyer or seller of a good or service (either alone or in a group) and the governement has no role in protecting you or your group from making mistakes. The governement role is to protect against force and fraud. End of story.

Any solution which proposes to fix everything by compelling people to act one way or another, because the proposer(s) knows better, is wrong. The free market solution protects people from sanctimonious know-it-alls who tell us that they know how to run our lives better than we do, and they have the force of governement to make us act the way they want to, restrict our choices and enforce their bass ackwards morality.

While there are obvious reforms that can be made, nothing reduces the cost of health insurance like belonging to a group. When a large company buys health insurance for its employees, or self insures, it is spreading the risk over a large group with corresponding savings for individuals. When a small company buys health insurance, the premuiums are much higher. When you buy insurance as an individual, the costs are correspondingly higher. Why is it that you cannot be grouped with the entire insurance company’s clients?

It’s overhead. There’s a cost to marketing policies, and that cost is independent of the size of the group covered by the policy. It’s simply cheaper on a per-unit basis to sell to a large group than a small one.

The other problem that must be dealt with is, that no matter the age or the income, when it comes to paying for care, everyone has to have skin this game and everyone has to do their part to reduce costs.

A large part of our problem today, is that way too many procedures are completely elective – a large reason Medicare is going broke. As example, of the thirteen women over 65 in my mother’s Sunday School class, eleven of them had knee replacements and all within the last three years. Including the therapy, I wouldn’t want to venture a guess of the cost.

It’s buying power.
But this is the 21st century, and the definition of “group” is changing rapidly.
It is no longer efficient to expect that in all circumstances, your group is your place of employment. There are plenty of other groups.

The Freelancer’s Union, for example, offers low cost health insurance. So does the AAA in some areas. So do some social organizations. Sooner or later, someone will create an internet “group” that will do for selling health insurance what Ebay did for travel.

The Clinton Plan actually worked this way. People would have been organized into very large groups for health purposes. Insurance companies would have been forced to bid against one another to issue a group policy covering tens of thousands of people under a “community rating” system. Financing of the plan would have been through a payroll tax split between employee and employer based upon wage level. Minimum wage levels would pay a total of 7.8% with higher wage levels paying more to a maximum of 15.6%. People would have had a choice of an HMO plan, a PPO type plan, and a “fee for service” type plan. The HMO type plan would have had the lowest co pays, the fee for service plan the highest co-pays. All in all, a rather well thought out plan similar in some aspects to what is used in other developed countries. Far superior of course to what Mitt Romney and later Barak Obama created. More costly of course than a true free market system, but “breaking” the monopoly in health care would have been too difficult to ever “sell” to the American people. The Clinton Plan went down to defeat when the insurance companies, the rest of the health care industry realized that they’d no longer be able to earn the high profits and the upper class incomes possible today under our own system. So they spent some hundreds of thousands of dollars in TV ads (remember Harry & Louise) to defeat the Clinton Plan. The fact that there was very little opposition to Obama’s plan by organized medicine proves that the American people are the ones getting the “short end of the stick” in this! When Canada adopted their system, the medical profession also fought back, but because Canada’s form of government is far harder to “bribe” than ours, the people “won” in Canada. While here in the USA the “people” lost and the health care monopolists won! True, a true free market system would be better, yet, but there isn’t enough support for it. Only Ron Paul supports true free market medicine. None of the others do, mainly for the reason a good part of their campaign money is coming from the health care system who doesn’t want any changes in things!

As soon as you linked “financing of the plan” and “taxes” in one concept you missed the point.

Clinton’s plan was not a free market plan. When you say “people would be grouped” it is clear. Grouped by whom? On what basis? How?

People should be free to form their groups. Methods for doing so will emerge. I strongly suspect these groups will vet prospective members, and their lifestyles, to determine how much to charge them for the privilege of joining.

<>.
Maybe, but the Catholic Church has always had deep concern for the poor, and the Bishops thought Obamacare would be a good thing. Their failing was that they trusted Obama as they have trusted former presidents to be at least honest. They couldn’t grasp that they are dealing with a fundamentally dishonest man, a Marxist and likely Muslim who is anti-Christianity and anti-American.
The problem with health insurance does go back to WWII when the government imposed price and wage controls (they ALWAYS cause shortages and distortion of the market), and employers gave health insurance as an incentive to keep workers on the job.
I have faith that free market solutions can fix the problem,
Besides, a reality that rarely surfaces in the whole health care debate is that no one in America is dying in doorways. Medical care is available whether you can pay or not. Care for the indigent may not be as convenient as for the insured, but it’s available. America is a kind and charitable nation, orgainizations like Deborah Hospital treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. Many physicians will treat probono if necessary.
Getting back to the Catholic Church, care for the poor can be found in the many branches of Catholic Charities; an organization Obama would punish despite the inestimable good works they have done for decades.

Nonetheless, church leaders were more than willing to back ObamaCare and force those of us who DO pay taxes to fund this debacle, as long as they were exempted from the specifics that conflicted with their faith.

Obama bought their compliance and support with promises and our tax dollars.

The surest way to increase costs, lower effectiveness, and complicate the system is to involve the government. The co-dependent secular part of secular-progressive keeps wanting to make government as god, and therefore responsible for all of the charity and the ills. Forced charity isn’t. Bureaucrats and regulators do not belong in the exam room.
As we speak, Obamacare is merging with Medicare in a flood of expensive regulatory busywork. Predictably hospitals and physicians will opt out of Medicare, hence saving costs by making that system useless. Prepare to pay more, decrease quality, or be denied coverage due to central planning.

When did health insurance go to from being for emergencies to paying for commonplace medical care. If you had a sore throat you paid for it or made arrangements to pay. If you had appendicitis insurance would pay, same with cancer or any serious illness. If you had a cavity you paid for it, if your kid knocked out some teeth insurance world pay. Insurance was for big ticket emergencies not day in day out life. Same with birthcontrol. It’s your responsibility and choice and you pay for it. If you can’t afford the pill there are other cheaper alternatives. Yes they are not as convenient as the pill but considering the drawbacks of the pill there are other choices.

How did our parents and grandparents do with out the pill. They coped just fine. The old timers knew ways not to get pregnant that did not require a trip to the drug store.

“The new rule interprets this mandate. It requires coverage of the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Among the drugs and devices that must be covered are emergency contraceptives including pills known as ella and Plan B. The rule also requires coverage of sterilization procedures for women without co-payments or deductibles.” (Men will have to pay for their sterilizations.)

Those “emergency contraceptives” can (I’m a cautious layman) function as abortifacients, i.e., drugs that act after conception to prevent further development of new life. So they cannot be contraceptives, or “a form of contraception.” Further, as a recent article by Jane Brody of the New York Times also indicated, an IUD can function as an abortifacient.

As opinions of journalists and others suggest, the “contraceptives” to which the president has referred cover the Pill, condoms, and not much more. But the mandate is far greater in scope. Further, since abortion is an essential part of the rights package whose morality the president and many others support, that will be included in the free “preventive health services” should the president be reelected. First, a little litigation to reverse his Executive Proclamation barring abortion from ObamaCare, then the reaction that the courts have mandated inclusion, and Mr. Obama and others have to go along with the courts. Or he will find some other means.

But leaving that reasoned speculation aside, most people still get this from an AP article on the president’s recent news conference, at its end, written by the AP’s (and Obama’s) man at the White House:

“The president also made an election year appeal to women, a key voting bloc for Obama in the general election. Obama’s campaign has been particularly pointed in his outreach to women on the issue of access to birth control. The president made a pointed entry in the debate last week when he called a Georgetown University Law School student who was criticized by radio commentator Rush Limbaugh because of her vocal support for his administration’s requirement of birth control insurance coverage.”

That is propaganda, written to favor the president’s cause. No other description, in the judgment of this former newspaper reporter, is accurate. That “requirement of birth control insurance coverage” does not hint at the mandate’s scope, which, to the best of my knowledge, the AP has never provided to the public. To take another item, the propagandist-newsman referred to an “outreach to women on the issue of access to birth control.” Access? Issue on it? Do employees of Catholic institutions have problems getting access to such “preventive health services”? As the Catholic bishops have pointedly noted, in other instances, that expression refers to prevention of disease. Is pregnancy a disease?

The Church may have a teaching and Catholics, as anyone ought to realize, do not necessarily follow them. Nor does the Church have any means to force them to. The government does have a means to force Catholic institutions to abide by its mandates. Those realities are lost on most journalists and commentators.

If what others have insisted is true, by far the vast majority of Catholic women have used contraceptives. So access to them is not at all an “issue.” Not nowhere. Not nohow. Further, we do not know whether a significant percentage of Catholics have confined sex only to a woman’s infertile periods. Is that not 100% effective? A look at the FDA’s own presentation of the covered services discovers that none of the covered procedures is 100% effective.

The AP also did not question anything that law school student claimed, e.g., the annual cost of contraceptives, which she put at $3,000 for three years. The generally given cost range for the Pill is $15 to $50. So the max would be $1,800, with most users likely spending much less.

We’re getting propaganda from the president and his fellow believers in the news media, which, for the most part, are too partisan, ignorant, and lacking in journalistic integrity to be trusted. As for Mr. Obama, he is delivering on his promise of Hoax and Chains. Or did he promise something else, as real as his dreams and our nightmares?

Actually, the Church does have a means to force believers to obey teachings: excommunication. If you don’t believe what we believe, you’re not one of us, and you need to stop pretending you are. Either conform to our beliefs or leave.

“If you don’t believe what we believe, your’e not one of us.” But who is to be believed? The words of Jesus Christ, or the words of the modern patriarchs/bishops? What’s that old, bad, joke? You don’t play the game, so you don’t make the rules.

“Either conform to our beliefs or leave.” I voted with my feet a long time ago and left the Catholic Church. My reasons are my own.

About two years ago, a prominent hospital in the Denver area was taken over by a chain of Catholic hospitals. It was generally acknowledged that the new ownership would not provide any sort of reproductive services; including abortion and contraceptives. And they made it clear there would be no provision of tubal ligations, vasectomies, or in-vitro-fertilizations. All this despite the hospital receiving all sorts of federal and state government grants; and even though the surgical procedures & doctor bills generally would be covered by patients’ insurance carriers.

The new ownership also was asked if the hospital would recognize a patient’s living will; meaning would they allow the plug to be pulled if the patient’s doctors said there was no hope of medical recovery. They never provided a definite answer. But there was a strong hint that a patient’s living will; recognized as a legal document in Colorado; would not be recognized because pulling the plug violates Church teaching. Or, put in another way, a patient’s personal interest would be overruled by Church dogma.

I agree with most of Dr. Hsieh’s points that medical insurance ought to be de-coupled from employment; and get government out of the insurance game. As big an issue for me is getting big government & big religion out of citizens’ personal and private life decisions.

I often encounter folks who have the same sad excuse as Steve. That sad excuse is disagreement with a teaching or position of the Church. So, Steve, because you disagree with the Churchs teaching on end of life and contraception you will reject the Bride of Christ — His Holy Catholic Church and your own personal salvation? You’ll give all that up for what?

It can be a challenge to live an authentic Christian and Catholic life. That is very true. But, Christ has given us his Church and all that entails to help us to our final home.

“Thou shalt not commit murder.” All forms of murder are prohibited, including euthanasia and suicide. Also prohibited are lesser forms of violence against persons, such as the mutilation or amputation of healthy limbs and organs. Now, it is not euthanasia to remove artificial life support, but patients must be provided basic care so long as they live. Basic care consists of hygiene, preserving a viable temperature, and so long as the body has the capacity to accept them, food and water. If possible, the patient should take food naturally, but if the patient lacks the strength or requisite motor skills to eat, a feeding tube or an IV may be used. Nutrition and hydration cannot be withdrawn unless it becomes clear that the body is no longer able to absorb food and water, as sometimes happens in the hours leading up to death.

Under no circumstances will the Catholic Church assent to actively killing a patient, nor to hasten death by withholding basic care. Any instructions to the contrary, whether verbal or written, from the patient or the patient’s agent will not be obeyed.

Sorry Keith. I don’t have a reason to be saved by your or someone else’s religion. And that does not make me a bad person. I rejected your religion because it does not, and did not, provide for my spiritual needs.

Myth: my life is my own. I do not agree that any religion should have control over how it is ended.

Alfred, that was a well written post. I’m hesitant to take exception because I agreed with 99% of the content. However, like myth buster, I do have to comment on this:

The Church may have a teaching and Catholics, as anyone ought to realize, do not necessarily follow them. Nor does the Church have any means to force them to. The government does have a means to force Catholic institutions to abide by its mandates.

While it is true that the Catholic Church leaders have no means to enforce Catholic women to abide by the precept of “be fruitful and multiply”, which somewhat humors me because it seems to be the only commandment from God we believers have no problem following, whether any Catholic women chooses to follow that rule I believe misses the point. The Church establishes the rules according to their interpretations of God’s Word, not the parishioners. Since I am not Catholic, I would argue with its leaders there is no instruction forbidding of birth control, but it would not be my place and certainly not government’s to force the Church to acquiesce to a different interpretation. Here, I don’t believe we would disgree.

But I do believe it is well within the church’s right to establish for its congregants what the tenets of the church are, and if one can not abide by those tenets, then they need to find residence elsewhere to conduct their personal preference of worship.

Like you, I am concerned about the propaganda and the lies being perpetrated by this Administration and its lackey media. I certainly believe the First Amendment clearly spells out to our government officials, that government has no place short of criminality intervening within the walls of any religion. And that really is what this issue is about. Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and Valerie Jarrett were and still are in infringing upon the very first Amendment. I don’t know how any intellectually honest individual could read different, because the simplicity of the First Amendment doesn’t require a constitutional law degree to understand.

Religiously affiliated hospitals are first and foremost businesses and employers of people. Just because they happen to be associated with a religion shouldn’t give them a right to side step-laws because of, the usual convenient ploy, “religious freedom”.

My hypothetical religion believes and my holy book demands that believers should live in poverty and only make $2 an hour. Should my hypothetical company, which is associated with this religion be able to ignore minimum wage and other labor laws? This may seem ridiculous, but it’s an accurate metaphor for this debate. The hospital is free to deny procedures and services because of it’s beliefs, but it should not be free to oppress it’s employees because of this.

The obvious fix to this is issue, like the good Dr. mentioned is to decouple insurance from employment. However, since that is a long and arduous transition, this bill should be passed in the interim to protect woman from being oppressed by misogynistic religious policies. Last time I checked the unemployment is 8%, and there aren’t as many Hospitals as fast food chains, simply “finding a different employer” for nurses, doctors, and staff just isn’t a viable option.

I believe SCOTUS would disagree with you, Chris.
In Hosanna-Tabor v. E.E.O.C.. their concurring opinion, Justices Alito and Kagan noted that “[t]o safeguard this crucial aspect of religious autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’”

Chris said, “…but it should not be free to oppress it’s employees because of this.”

When applying for jobs, the applicant weighs several factors to determine which job they want. What are the hours? What is the salary? Where is the job located? What does the benefits package look like? No one is being forced to work for a religiously-affiliated employer. We, as American citizens, have every right to either (1) work for a religiously-affiliated business, and supplement our insurance if we so choose, or (2) chose to work for an employer that provides as comprehensive of a health care plan as we desire.

Hi keithp, thanks for the info. I wasn’t aware of this SCOTUS ruling. I’ll have to read up more about the implications.

Consider my mind blown by this ruling. Sounds like any company can put an asterisks by its name, say it’s religiously affiliated and do whatever evil it wants then. Sounds like a very dangerous precedent.

Keith, this is crucial: “We, as American citizens, have every right to either (1) work for a religiously-affiliated business, and supplement our insurance if we so choose, or (2) chose to work for an employer that provides as comprehensive of a health care plan as we desire.”

Should my hypothetical company, which is associated with this religion be able to ignore minimum wage and other labor laws? This may seem ridiculous, but it’s an accurate metaphor for this debate. The hospital is free to deny procedures and services because of it’s beliefs, but it should not be free to oppress it’s employees because of this.

Talk about twisting for an unreasoned retort.

Your “metaphor” is not accurate in the least. Yours is a completely specious analogy, and those employees are free to work anywhere they so choose. They are not free to tell the trustees what their moral tenets will be, or how they will run their charity – a charity generally overseen by nuns. Have you forgotten these are non profit organizations, partially funded by those religious institutions you apparently hate?

And it is obvious your rant is not based decision or logic, but a hatred of organized religion. You want to talk about frightening? It’s reprobates like you that can’t understand the very First Amendment and clearly cede to government to act as national conscience. That was strictly forbidden by our Founders, and a major reason men risks their lives to break away from such persecution. Why would you believe like you do when the very sentence of the very First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I would expect a challenge of that quality on a Yahoo board, but not here.

You’re focusing on the second part of the establishment clause, while I’m focusing on the first. Allowing organized religions to get special privileges and avoid laws that apply to the rest of the general population is a direct violation of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

My metaphor does apply, it might be on the verge of a slippery slope logical fallacy, but because the definition of a “religion” and their “beliefs” is so loose and open to interpretation, it’s asking to be abused in precisely this way.

Your second point is valid, but not practical. We require some basic protections, similar to the labor laws in this case to ensure a fair baseline of health care. The best idea to resolve this point is to decouple health insurance from employment, until then we have to look out for the best moral interests of woman and society in general.

Laissez-faire capitalism is all good in theory, but people in general find ways to cheat and abuse the system thus requiring forms of oversight, ergo government regulation.

Religiously affiliated hospitals are first and foremost businesses and employers of people. Just because they happen to be associated with a religion shouldn’t give them a right to side step-laws because of, the usual convenient ploy, “religious freedom”.

You have a very warped view of the church, its mission and the health care it provides. You operate as if Catholic hospitals are answering to shareholders like a corporation. You are wrong. Catholic Hospitals are first and foremost a religious charitable institution. You doubt me?

Here is the mission statement of one the largest Catholic Hospitals in America. I feel confident virtually every Catholic Hospital’s mission statement would read much the same:

We hold dear our mission and values as a faith-based healthcare ministry. Indeed, it is our mission and values that guide and direct us to aspire to treat all who enter our facility as Christ himself would. Cornerstone to this covenant is a steadfast belief in the notion that the inherent dignity of the human person, at all times, be protected and respected. This then requires that in addition to providing treatment for ailment and disease, care also be rendered to attend to the mental, emotional and spiritual needs of each individual.

When you can find a secular business mission statement that reads like this, get back with me and we can let you and Obama act as our national conscience answering not to Christ, but to government.

A philosophy of health care based on dogma? I would prefer one based on science, facts and the best interest of the clients.

Here is one far better than what you’ve quoted:

Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.

Bravo. It was very gutsy of you to stand up and declare your promiscuity. I’m sure your parents are glowing with pride. May I offer a practical fashion tip?When tripping out for some nookie nooki,e dress in a Hefty Bag; that way you’ll be prepared for anything. I was wondering if now that you have so successfully advertised yor sexual interests, do guys have to pick a number at your door? I hope I am not being too presumptive by assuming you prefer guys. Anyhow, good luck in your evolving political career. I hope to be seeing a lot more of you, perhaps on YouTube.

‘Sarcasm, hate and pure ignorance’? I thought that I was being helpful and supportive to the poor thing. So you detected some sarcasm; good job, are you an English major? I really do despise manipulative libs who practice agiprop. True ignorance would be to accept her performance as anything other than an orchestrated attempt to impose her limited world view on the rest of us. Sorry Chris, Limbaugh had her pegged just right. Perhaps she can parley this into a Occupy the Bedroom movement.

So excising your first amendment right and standing up for what you believe in is trying to “impose her limited world view on the rest of us”. I’m afraid you have a very poor understanding of democracy and constitutional rights.

Libs spouting Agitprop? Do you watch anything FoxNews puts out?

Your comments spew all kinds of hate and logical fallacies, all I’m asking for is civil discourse. The typical response I get from conservatives these days is that of covering your ears, and throwing a temper tantrum. Real mature.

Why do you think that dear Sandra, our late blooming law student chose to attend a Jesuit university, or do you not believe she was quite deliberate and intent upon forcing her views upon an instution that finds them abhorent? And exactly where in the Constitution do you find the right to contraceptives? As adults we are expected to provide ourselves with lifes necessities including food, shelter, and various and sundry expenses related to casual sex. Under our
constitution, beloved Sandra can screw her head off; I do not have to underwrite that activity. And you know, Chris, it is not an issue of medical need. Quite the contrary, since the introduction of the pill, sexually transmitted diseases have reached epidemic proportion in America. That is directly the result of sexual promiscuity enabled by oral contraceptives. And then there are several other interesting consequences of chronic oral contraceptive use including their impact breast cancer, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. And, apparently, the readly availability of oral contraceptives (Ms Fluke’s estimate of $3000 over three years is risable and suggests part of that amount was used to pay for an escort service) hasn’t made much of an impact considering that the U.S. is the abortion capital of the universe. The bottom line is that randy Sandy sought to rub her pudenda in the face of the Catholic Church. Do you think she would be so brave as to attempt that at a Moslem university? Do you get my drift?

You didn’t watch all of Sandra Flukes deposition either did you? What about the lesbian who needed birth control to help manage ovarian cysts, this was a medical need, but she was denied coverage because they insisted she wanted the pills for sex. Obviously she didn’t need the pills for casual sex, being a lesbian.

————

I’m sorry but we don’t live in the dark ages anymore. You can live under the delusions that humans aren’t animals and that sex isn’t a biologically wired imperative, but I live in reality and understand that giving woman the right to be in charge of their bodies and reproductive health is the best decision.

Birth control is advocated by many (probably all) non-partisan health advisers.

You get to cross your arms and push back in your chair and say, “I don’t want to pay for the procedure”. Where does it end? My wife and I don’t intend to have children, why should I be forced to cover other people having kids? (That being far more expensive than contraception mind you).

Yes, this birth control coverage is just a bandaid protecting woman in the interim, but what should be done in the long term is decouple health insurance from your employer, give people the right to choose their insurance plans separate from where they work. (That will make everyone happy).

Chris, your a laugh a minute. To begin with, oral contraceptives are dirt cheap. So this has nothing to do medical economics. And I am absolutely certain that the lesbain with ovarian cysts would have no problem getting the appropriate medication when prescribed by her physician. That is a straw man arguement. It issue is, or rather the anti-issue is forcing a relgious institution to condone and support activity it finds anathema. Get it? You don’t have to go to a Jesuit law school Chris. She chose it on purpose. Perhaps that wasn’t mentioned on NBC or in the NY Times. It was a deliberate act with a definite objective. It was no fluke (no pun intended, that Fluke chose Georgetown. She had many other options. Not to mention the fact that tuition at Georgetown is pretty steep, so if she could afford that, she could also pay for her own contraceptive needs. You’re an electrical engineer so you can’t be that dim. It’s all theater. It’s all stage managed by the WH. It is so obviously contrived that only a fool would not recognize he was being played. Our dearly beloved president cannot run for reelection based on his policies and achievements so he has opted to change the subject. Birth control is readily available and inexpensive despite the blather promulgated by Fluke. And if you are really desperate, there is always abstinence. That is why you were granted a mind as well as testicles and ovaries. Fluke can screw from DC to LA and back as far as I am concerned. Just don’t present me with the bill. I’ll let you in on something else; the sexual revolution so glorified by the popular entertainment industry has managed to destroy the concept of marriage and family. You think not…..talk to some of your thiry-ish female friends. one other bit of info for you to chew on; one of the unintended consequences of unlimited abortion on demand has been de facto black genocide.Happy Herpes, Chris. Be careful, it’s a dangerous world out there.

“And I am absolutely certain that the lesbain with ovarian cysts would have no problem getting the appropriate medication when prescribed by her physician”

According to her, she was not able to get the medication. Again, I ask if you actually watched the video?

I am just curious if you have your “hat in the game” so to say, maybe it’s too personal a question, don’t answer if you’re offended, but are you currently a pre-menapausal woman, and have you ever taken birth control? Also, have you had to pay for college? You think the costs for birth control are minimal, yet the price is anywhere from $15 to $50 a month, quite a steep fee when you’re going into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to pay for college.

(I would like to point out to everyone the apparent debate style going on here , similar to what I often encounter over at FoxNews, berating and personal attacks, sarcasm and underhanded remarks. Did the majority of the conservative base gave up civil discourse and intelligent dialog awhile ago? Forget any thoughts of actually coming to any form of compromise, it’s my way or the highway. At least in the comments above ChrisS and I are able to talk about the issues and avoid the personal attacks.)

Well Chris it is difficult to know where to begin. Did I have to pay for college? Do you think that the tooth fairy paid for it? Of course I did by working summers. Ditto medical school. You see, Chris, just a few years ago we college age people realized that we had to work to succeed, and did not live under the false premise that we were owed anything. We didn’t take summers off to explore the world, or spend a semester or two wandering. Tuition was not as expensive as it is now; paychecks were also smaller. As for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition you owe I have some advice; choose an institution that has affordable tuition, there are many. You know those 4 star universities asking $50,000 per annum…they aren’t worth it. It’s a rip-off. If you can only afford a Chevy Volt, God forbid, you aren’t owed a Ferarri. If Fluke can afford Georgetown, she can afford to finance her sex life.

Let me reiterate what I’ve previously stated; the wide availablity of oral contraceptives is a bane, not a boon. The epidemic in sexually transmitted diseases is directly linked to the Pill. The decline in marriage is a direct consequence of the availabity casual sex, promiscuity and the much touted sexual revolution glorified by Hollywood and the radical feminists. Black genocide is the unintended consequence of abortion on demand.

You seem quite fixated on Fox News. I guess you don’t pay attention the the mature views of such luminaries as Maher, Olberman, Mathews,et al who routinely slander conservatives and smear conservative women. Well, we’re accustomed to it, sticks and stones you know. I don’t have much time for daytime TV Chris, I have a day job. Perhaps you should skip Fox and take a look at some other network to see what is going on.

Apparently you do not know what agitprop is. That is what Fluke’s staged performance in front of a make-believe congressional panel arguing for yet another gimmee was. Screwing is guaranteed by the constitution; doing it responsibly is an individual obligation. If one cannot afford some recreational activity, one forgoes it. There is a ‘biological imperative for sex’? There is an ethical obligation to use your brain to control your biologic imperatives.

As for civil discourse, the left has made that all but impossible; just listen to the daily smears, ad hominem attacks, slanders nd libels issuing from the liberal press, politicians and administration representatives. Many of us are fed up with the tactics of the left. It is amusing to hear libs mewl and howl when the tables are turned.

Carlo, I’m not sure how long ago you went to college, but times have changed. My wife is currently going to in-state veterinary school, the cheapest we could find. The final cost of tuition minus what we’ve been paying down is nearly equal to the size of our mortgage. I also went to an in-state college, I worked every summer but I was still left with a sizable debt. Even being responsible in selecting affordable colleges the costs are huge.

Why in the world do we have to make a choice between college and basic heath services?

—————-

“the wide availablity of oral contraceptives is a bane, not a boon. The epidemic in sexually transmitted diseases is directly linked to the Pill”

Correlation does not imply causation. I’ll trust the judgement of organizations like WHO. I’m curious if you have any reputable sources to back up that accusation.

“The decline in marriage is a direct consequence of the availabity casual sex”

Another wild accusation, any evidence to support his claim? You do know that you Rush Limbaugh has been married and divorced 4 times. So much for the sanctity of marriage the Right are so vehemently defending.

“Black genocide is the unintended consequence of abortion on demand.”
I would like to point out that abortion is an voluntary procedure, it’s not being forced on anyone and cannot be considered genocide. If people are in a situation where they decide it is irresponsible to raise a child and that they cannot afford it, they should be given the option to control their own lives. The real issue here is that there are more Black Americans in poverty. You’re focusing on the wrong issue, if you actually care about ‘genocide’ work to bring them out of poverty first so they can raise a child and not put even more of a burden on their lives.

(Sorry if I’m attacking FoxNews, but I just want to say I also read it daily so that I can look at both sides of the discussion. Most news sources for both sides are not “Fair and Balanced”, I just see the worst offenses coming from that side)

I thought Her Son the Millionaire had given up the actual practice of medicine for public relations, but if so, the fryin’ pan’s loss is the fire’s gain. For ¿what *competent* flak would venture to offer the Roman hierophants free advice on regainin’ the moral high ground?

Fred, you and Carla are both intelligent people, so is Rush. All four of us are just very opinionated.

It’s good that we are able to discuss the issues, the only problem is the debate seems to keep deflating to ad hominem attacks rather than focusing on the issue and trying to find a compromise. (Both sides are guilty in failing to come to a fair compromise)

I’m not sure how long ago you went to college, but times have changed. My wife is currently going to in-state veterinary school, the cheapest we could find. The final cost of tuition minus what we’ve been paying down is nearly equal to the size of our mortgage. I also went to an in-state college, I worked every summer but I was still left with a sizable debt. Even being responsible in selecting affordable colleges the costs are huge.

Why in the world do we have to make a choice between college and basic heath services?

—————-

“the wide availablity of oral contraceptives is a bane, not a boon. The epidemic in sexually transmitted diseases is directly linked to the Pill”

Correlation does not imply causation. I’ll trust the judgement of organizations like WHO. I’m curious if you have any reputable sources to back up that accusation.

“The decline in marriage is a direct consequence of the availabity casual sex”

Another wild accusation, any evidence to support his claim? You do know that you Rush Limbaugh has been married and divorced 4 times. So much for the sanctity of marriage the Right are so vehemently defending.

“Black genocide is the unintended consequence of abortion on demand.”
I would like to point out that abortion is an voluntary procedure, it’s not being forced on anyone and cannot be considered genocide. If people are in a situation where they decide it is irresponsible to raise a child and that they cannot afford it, they should be given the option to control their own lives. The real issue here is that there are more Black Americans in poverty. You’re focusing on the wrong issue, if you actually care about ‘genocide’ work to bring them out of poverty first so they can raise a child and not put even more of a burden on their lives.

(Sorry if I’m attacking FoxNews, but I just want to say I also read it daily so that I can look at both sides of the discussion. Most news sources for both sides are not “Fair and Balanced”, I just see the worst offenses coming from that side)

Sorry, can’t help you. Some people are so blind to reality as to make it a Sisyphussean endeavor to engage in dialogue. If you doubt the negative impact of the sexual revolution, casual sex, promiscuity, and aboriton on demand on the social fabric of this country, you’re a fool. If you consider oral contraceptives a basic medical need rather than a recreational subsidy, there is nothing left to discuss. Pointing out Limbaugh’s marital history is a typical lib attack tactic. And it’s irrevelant. As for the poverty within certain minority segments of the population, I will only point out that the left has been dumping money on that problem since LBJ, the result being increasing poverty, numerous failed social programs, and a large population chronically impoverished dependent upon the largesse of the government, as well as the resentment of those on the receiving end and their demands for more.

“Why in the world do we have to make a choice between college and basic heath services?”

Why in the world do we have to make a choice between a new car and a used one? Why do we have to make choices of a spouse when a government computer program could find us someone suitable in a flash? Why should we have to choose between a Republican and a Democratican for elective office so often. (Let’s just have one big election to settle the matter forever. Obviously we would vote for the party that hands out the most “free stuff.”)

Sorry if I’m attacking libruls, but they are the ones who think and act like morons.

“Why in the world do we have to make a choice between college and basic heath services?”

There is a wealth of psychology to explore, there. But it all boils down to begging the bigger questions:

Why in the world can’t we have whatever we want?

Leaders from the Left have been playing this for over a century. Support me. Fight for me. Put me in power, and you won’t have to choose between College and Health Care. You won’t have to choose between Rice and Noodles, or Red and Black.

Eventually, they honor their word. They realize they can’t actually provide A and B, so they take away the right to choose.

You hit Fox News, so I hit you. Fox News is the only shot at balanced cable tele news we’ve got. Watch CNN, CBS, ABC, Pubic Television and MSNBC all you want, but don’t come here and snidely attack free press and then be surprised by an angry reaction. The other provocateurs who come here know better.

I should clarify, I was attacking the people in the FoxNews forum, comparing the personal attacks by Tex and Carla on my person rather than focusing on the debate, not the news Fox puts out.

The talking heads on FoxNews are super biased, so are the ones on the other channels, that why I stick to the real news and try to avoid all the biased blow-hards. This is why I go to FoxNews, CNN, BBC, AP, etc, I have to look at them all to get the real information. I listen to FoxNews radio every morning on my way to work, that is totally unbiased news which I quite enjoy.

“‘Sarcasm, hate and pure ignorance’? I thought that I was being helpful and supportive to the poor thing. So you detected some sarcasm; good job, are you an English major? I really do despise manipulative libs who practice agiprop. True ignorance would be to accept her performance as anything other than an orchestrated attempt to impose her limited world view on the rest of us. Sorry Chris, Limbaugh had her pegged just right. Perhaps she can parley this into a Occupy the Bedroom movement.”

Tell you what, I’ll offer just one piece of evidence that what I said in #38 is correct.

Issue: Fair elections.

Conservative position: People who go to vote should have good evidence that they are who they claim to be. Photo identification is a good way to accomplish this and is widely used for this purpose in many other situations.
Result: Mostly only qualified actually vote. Voting is more fair.

Librul position: An unknown number, but a small number, of people will be inconvenienced in getting a photo ID. Admittedly though almost everyone already has one nobody should have to show a photo ID to vote.
Result: Many unqualified can easily vote, and vote more than once. Voting is less fair.

Conservative position: Practical and fair.
Librul position: Moronic. It does nothing to solve the issue in question, but only makes things worse. Your turn, Zehzie.

Zeh: “…now I’m a fan of Obama, because he’s better than the other options.”

So this is what the fair and balanced Fox News reports about huh? Teh news is Obama actions, well his words anyway, well his words at this point in time anyway, his words in spite of the desires of Dr. of Physics Chu, Obama’s energy Tsar. (Chu is on record as saying The Administration wants gasoline prices to rise.) So Fox is reporting Obama is doing everything he can to lower gas prices. Of course Obama wasn’t specific. In fairness he can’t be specific because he has done nothing at all for over three years up to and including today, to increase the supply of gas so the price can go down.

Who wouldn’t vote for a man like Obama? Only about half the nation. Let’s be honest, Zehie. You like Obama because he takes taxes from the half of the nation who pay taxes and makes some of it available for…Zehzie. That’s why you think Obama is better than the options. Now isn’t that the truth?

I agree, It is time to move on. Another little discussed medical need is the free access to high quality toilet paper. The annual cost of super-soft toilet paper for the average family of four can exceed $500, allowing for variations in personal fastidiousness, culinary considerations and local weather. This is not an insignificant sum, especially if you are a struggling, middle aged, sexually active law student. The positive health consequences of such a federal program could be staggering, especially accompanied by a first class educational campaign focused on the proper use of this resource. It is a subject entirely absent from the K-12 curriculum. Anyhow, sterilization can be done with Yttrium lasers on an outpatient basis, possible in a drive-through environment. It seems to be a reasonable approach to a contentious problem.

Am I the only one who sees the tax hike in this? “In 1943, the IRS ruled that employees did not have to pay taxes on health insurance paid for by employers, and the IRS made this permanent in 1954.”

What was once a tax shelter would become fully taxable again. For me, that would be around $2500 unsheltered…now taxable. That is what the whole Obamacare thing is really about–doing away with tax-sheltered employer health care plans to get more revenue, but in replacement, he offers exchanges with health plan parameters containing tons of bells-and-whistles of the kind he was supposedly stamping out…to be bought AFTER-tax.

Whatever you pay for employer coverage now will suddenly become taxable if employer coverage goes away. Leave us a CHOICE to be covered by them or go out on the exchanges.

Next, they’ll come for our IRAS, and Hillary already tried that one when hubby Bill was in office! Then we’ll be on par with Finland: 80% of their income goes to taxes, and the citizenry have just enough left over to drink themselves to death.

Also, regarding the birth control access wars, do I get the opportunity to opt out of coverage? I’m in menopause, and have no need for OB/Gyn services other than the yearly pap smear. Why should I pay for coverage I’m never going to use? Why should any woman over 50 have to pay for this kind of coverage?

When you can get a box of condoms for $5 or less, why should we even be discussing who’s going to pay for pills? We’re willing to abdicate power and privacy over a mere $5? You gotta wonder!